War in the Balkans! Basically a war of race and
religion. The problem becomes difficult only because one is unable to work out the
way in which the booty is to be divided. In particular, the Slavs (that is, the
Balkan
states and Russia), the Germanic nations (the Germans and the
English), and finally also the Roman nations (the French and Italians) would gladly
expel the Turks from Europe if their mutual interests were not in
conflict. Thus, for example, England, which is a Germanic state, is allied with
Russia (a
Slavic state) and France (a Roman state) in order to weaken the other
Germanic state – Germany – in the contest. But if the Turkish spoils
came under consideration, then England would have to take the side of Germany against
Russia,
which, being the most powerful Slavic state, must be prevented from becoming even
more powerful than it already is from the spoils of war, etc. Where,
however, such impure causes are at work a healthy outcome is not to be expected.
Moreover, wars of race and religion cannot be eradicated: the time will never come in
which people are so tolerant that similar wars will be spared. Finally, all religions
as are found in Europe today are beyond the stage of conquests; the
initial power of incitement has long since been extinguished in them, and it is only
human inertia that drags it through the centuries. Accordingly, one must wonder why
racial and religious strife is still in vogue; but one comes closer to the truth if
one disregards the age of religion, and seeks the solution elsewhere. And indeed this
consists of the following: no religion can be established unless {252}
the person to whom it is intended is given to believe that he is in possession of the
one true, best religion. It is only vanity, not understanding, that mediates between
the founder and his first disciples. The founder must expressly ensure that he is
giving them a "better religion" than other people received
from other founders. This
flattery on the part of the founder triggers in the disciple the vanity of a new, more valuable possession, and
now he believes that he has the "best" religion because this
was assured to him by the founder. Without realizing that the appeal to his vanity
was a necessary command, he gets involved in war and feuds, ostensibly for the
best religion, but, in
truth, for the delusion, which is so flatteringly soothing, that only he and his
fellow believers are in possession of the better faith. The case is by no
means different from, say, the institution of marriage. Here, too, the understanding
of the essence of the institution is not an issue for the majority of husbands and
wives, not therefore its ethical and constitutional aspects, but rather the vanity of
participating in this institution. From this it is clear that, whenever man and wife
live in wedlock, they will turn up their noses in vain pride at all the other
numerous partnerships in which other persons of male and female gender seek their
salvation, without considering that, as far as the ethical core of the matter is
concerned, so many of these partnerships are not only equivalent to a formal marriage
but actually outclass them. Only that which they have themselves do they regard as
good; and therefore the arrangements of others, merely on account of its being
different, are of less value. This promotes vanity: one not only cares merely about
oneself, one feels also to be superior.

War in the Balkans! Basically a war of race and
religion. The problem becomes difficult only because one is unable to work out the
way in which the booty is to be divided. In particular, the Slavs (that is, the
Balkan
states and Russia), the Germanic nations (the Germans and the
English), and finally also the Roman nations (the French and Italians) would gladly
expel the Turks from Europe if their mutual interests were not in
conflict. Thus, for example, England, which is a Germanic state, is allied with
Russia (a
Slavic state) and France (a Roman state) in order to weaken the other
Germanic state – Germany – in the contest. But if the Turkish spoils
came under consideration, then England would have to take the side of Germany against
Russia,
which, being the most powerful Slavic state, must be prevented from becoming even
more powerful than it already is from the spoils of war, etc. Where,
however, such impure causes are at work a healthy outcome is not to be expected.
Moreover, wars of race and religion cannot be eradicated: the time will never come in
which people are so tolerant that similar wars will be spared. Finally, all religions
as are found in Europe today are beyond the stage of conquests; the
initial power of incitement has long since been extinguished in them, and it is only
human inertia that drags it through the centuries. Accordingly, one must wonder why
racial and religious strife is still in vogue; but one comes closer to the truth if
one disregards the age of religion, and seeks the solution elsewhere. And indeed this
consists of the following: no religion can be established unless {252}
the person to whom it is intended is given to believe that he is in possession of the
one true, best religion. It is only vanity, not understanding, that mediates between
the founder and his first disciples. The founder must expressly ensure that he is
giving them a "better religion" than other people received
from other founders. This
flattery on the part of the founder triggers in the disciple the vanity of a new, more valuable possession, and
now he believes that he has the "best" religion because this
was assured to him by the founder. Without realizing that the appeal to his vanity
was a necessary command, he gets involved in war and feuds, ostensibly for the
best religion, but, in
truth, for the delusion, which is so flatteringly soothing, that only he and his
fellow believers are in possession of the better faith. The case is by no
means different from, say, the institution of marriage. Here, too, the understanding
of the essence of the institution is not an issue for the majority of husbands and
wives, not therefore its ethical and constitutional aspects, but rather the vanity of
participating in this institution. From this it is clear that, whenever man and wife
live in wedlock, they will turn up their noses in vain pride at all the other
numerous partnerships in which other persons of male and female gender seek their
salvation, without considering that, as far as the ethical core of the matter is
concerned, so many of these partnerships are not only equivalent to a formal marriage
but actually outclass them. Only that which they have themselves do they regard as
good; and therefore the arrangements of others, merely on account of its being
different, are of less value. This promotes vanity: one not only cares merely about
oneself, one feels also to be superior.